Umpires accuse Pakistan of ball-tampering. Pakistan refuse to play in protest.

After an investigation, Pakistan are found not guilty of ball tampering, but Inzy is banned for keeping his side off the field, so they’re saying that while he was right, he was also wrong.

Now the match is being reclassified as a draw, meaning Pakistan weren’t wrong when they refused to play. Ordinarily, if you refuse to play, you forfeit the match. By saying that they didn’t forfeit the match, this is tacit approval.

So Inzy got banned for correctly protesting against unproven allegations of ball tampering in a now acceptable manner. Is that where we are?

I can’t help thinking that this has rather a lot to do with the reinstatement of umpire Hair. I reckon that the Pakistanis kicked up such a fuss about the fact that Hair was once again on the superdooper elite umpire’s list that the ICC had to do something to mollify them.

The ICC had nothing better to discuss during their hols, Q, because any topic to do with the future of cricket or any political ramifications thereof are taken care of by quite another body coughBCCIcough

This “sub-continental” thing, isn’t it mostly balls? Isn’t it just India who are rather rich and weighty at the moment? Are Pakistan all that (or SL and Bangala for that matter)?? If so, isn’t it then a lazy argument (and let’s be honest, a rather stupid one) to suggest that the sub-continentals are ganging up together against the decent white guys (please note the facetiousness and/or sarcasm).

I speak as someone with only the flimsiest grasp of the state of world cricket politics you understand, so feel free to give me a complete dressing down.